Anyone really good with all the car stuff for crim? I consistently bungle it up. Trying to just lay all the rules out in one place.

To stop car: need reasonable suspicion that law has been violated. pre textual stop is okay if police have reasonable suspicion some law has been violated.

To search car (without driver being arrested): *if officer reasonably believes weapons may be present --> can search passengers and passenger compartment, but not trunk. & can make driver/passenger exit car. *if officer has probable cause before the search begins: can search entire vehicle (trunk included) and any containers in car that could contain the evidence officer is searching for; can search passengers and their belongings; can tow vehicle and search at later time

Searching car incident to arrest of driver:Officer can conduct search car (except trunk) if at time of search: either (1) driver is unsecured / has physical access to interior of car OR (2) *officer can search any area of car (except trunk) that he reasonably suspects has evidence of the violation for which the car was pulled over (i.e. like looking in the glove compartment for alcohol container if thinks driver was drunk)

***so officer needs probable cause to arrest driver, but that probable cause only permits the above two searches? does the officer need separate probable cause that evidence is in the trunk to search the trunk even if officer has probable cause to arrest driver?

Checkpoints: needs to be a related vehicle-specific purpose (like a dui checkpoint); must stop cars using neutral standard

Inventory: if somehow the car is being searched related to an inventory search after an arrest, this is fine (don't know all the specifics of how/why/when this happens)

If someone is aware of an activity/animal being inherently/abnormally dangerous and they take action anyway, assumption of the risk will defeat their claim. However, someone cannot assume the risk when it comes to strict liability w/r/t products liability.

If someone is aware of an activity/animal being inherently/abnormally dangerous and they take action anyway, assumption of the risk will defeat their claim. However, someone cannot assume the risk when it comes to strict liability w/r/t products liability.

Is this correct?

Unforeseeable misuse is the closest to AoR in product liability

Last edited by kyle010723 on Fri Jul 24, 2015 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If someone is aware of an activity/animal being inherently/abnormally dangerous and they take action anyway, assumption of the risk will defeat their claim. However, someone cannot assume the risk when it comes to strict liability w/r/t products liability.

Is this correct?

Misuse is the closest to AoR in product liability

Gotcha. But misuse is tough to prove because foreseeable use is broadly interpreted, yea?

If someone is aware of an activity/animal being inherently/abnormally dangerous and they take action anyway, assumption of the risk will defeat their claim. However, someone cannot assume the risk when it comes to strict liability w/r/t products liability.

Is this correct?

Misuse is the closest to AoR in product liability

Gotcha. But misuse is tough to prove because foreseeable use is broadly interpreted, yea?

Yea, but it will be difficult for the bar to give you an ambiguous misuse. Driving a car above speed limit is probably not misuse. Strapping a car to a rocket is probably misuse. You probably wouldn't get a question about whether driving 120 mph is misuse.

So you can assume the risk by, say, jumping in to the tiger cage knowing full well a tiger is in there? Or you can assume the risk by walking in to the blasting site if you know what's there? Just want to make sure I understand.

Tiago Splitter wrote:So you can assume the risk by, say, jumping in to the tiger cage knowing full well a tiger is in there? Or you can assume the risk by walking in to the blasting site if you know what's there? Just want to make sure I understand.